HomeMy Public PortalAbout03-07-1983 09
PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMMON COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, MARCH..7, 1983 .
1 • The Common Council—of III .the City of Richmond, .Indiana, met in regular session
2 March 7, 1983 at the:hour of 7.:30. :p..m.. in the Council Chambers in the
3 Municipal Building _in said City. President Mills presided with the fol-
4 lowing members present: Messrs. Elstro, Williams., Ms. Henry, Hankinson,
5 Welch, Parker, .Carter and Paust. Absent: None. The following business
6 was had, to-wit: -
7 . . .
8 DEVOTIONS . .
9 .
10 Councilman -Jim Hankinson gave -devotions. .
11
12 APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF FEBRUARY 22, 1983
13 . .
14 Councilman Hankinson moved the minutes of the previous meeting be approved
' 15 as'published., seconded by Councilman Welch and on unanimous voice vote the
16 - motion`was carried.
17
18 REPORT FROM SPECIAL COMMITTEES , ,.
19 .
:20 n Councilman Elstro informed..Council members the first department visitation
21 will be-Monday, March 14: beginning at 5:30 'p.m. Council will be told at
22 that time the department they will be touring.
23 ,
24 WELCOME FROM THE PRESIDENT.
ill 25
26 President Mills 'welcomed government students from Richmond High School.
27 .
28 ORDINANCES ON 1ST READING
- 29 ORDINANCE NO. 10-1983-E . -
30 ,
31 Councilman Welch moved to suspend the rules and read-Ordinance No. 10-1983
32 on first reading by title only, seconded by Councilman Parker and on
33 unanimous voice vote the motion .was carried.
34 .
35 The Clerk. read by title only Ordinance No. 10-1983.- AN ORDINANCE AMENDING
36 CHAPTER 154 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE, BEING ORDINANCE NO. 2325-1968, COMMONLY
37 KNOWN AS THE ZONING ORDINANCE• OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, ADOPTED
38 JUNE 3, 1968.:, PROVIDING FOR THE REZONING OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 507 WEST
39 EATON PIKE FROM R-2 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT TO C-4 GENERAL BUSI-
40 NESS DISTRICT.
41 .
42 Councilman Welch moved to suspend the rules and read Ordinance No. 10-1983
43 on 'second reading, seconded by Councilman Paust and on unanimous voice
44• vote the motion was carried. -
45 '
46 The Clerk read on second reading Ordinance No. 10-1983.
47
48 President Mills announced Ordinance No. 10-1983 was on. public hearing. .
49 Reporting-_ from the Plan Commission was Mr. Robert Goodwin, 2019 South "A",
50 Plan Director for the city. 'He noted this property is located in the
51 two (2) mile fringe jurisdictional area and the Plan Commission voted 9-0 •
52 - for approval with recommendation to Council for passage.
53 - .
54 Councilman .Hankinson moved for engrossment of Ordinance :No. 10-1983,
55 seconded by Councilman Welch and on unanimous voice vote the motion was-
56 .carried.
57 .
58 Councilman Welch moved to suspend the rules and read Ordinance No. 10-1983 ,
59 on third and final reading by title only, seconded by Councilman Parker .
60 and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. _ ,
61
62 The Clerk read on third reading by title only Ordinance No. 10-1983. '
L
310
•
Common Council Minutes Cont'd-. .
March 7, 1983
Page 2
•
1 Ordinance .No. 10-1983 was,"adopted by the following vote: "
2 AYES: Elstro, Williams, Henry, Hankinson,
3 Welch, Parker, Carter, Paust, Mills (9)
4 NOES: None. (0)
5
6 ORDINANCES ON 3RD.READING
7
8 ORDINANCE NO.: 6-1983 -
9
10 Councilman Welch moved to suspend the rules and read Ordinance No. 6-1983
11 on third. reading by title only, seconded by .Councilman Williams and on
12 unanimous voice vote the motion'was carried:
13
14 The Clerk read on third reading by .title only Ordinance No.. 6-1983 - AN
15 ORDINANCE TO APPROPRIATE FROM THE LOCAL ROAD AND STREET FUND.
16
17 Councilman Carter 'stated he 'under_stood from Mr. Burgner the total project
18 cost of South "L" is approximately 3.2 million. .. The engineering fees are
19 - 6% which. is. one-hundred-ninety-two-thousand. He said we have already
20 paid this firm two hundred thousand and this ordinance authorizes another
21 forty thousand, which runs the design cost to two-hundred-forty-thousand,
22 . which he considers to be excessive.. . Secondly, in view of the ongoing
23 grand jury„'anvestigations, . some of which involve Mr. Burgner, it would
24 be wise to table this ordinance until the investigation is completed.
25 Councilman .Carter so moved, seconded by Councilman. Williams.
26
27 On a call of the roll the motion was defeated: Noes: Henry, Hankinson,
28 Welch, Parker, Paust, Mills (6) Ayes: Elstro, Williams, Carter (3)
29 .
30 . President Mills requested City;Attorney Ed Anderson read from his opinion.
31 _ Mr. Anderson read the following noting the first part goes into Home Rule
32 .and this part is quoting from the statute:
33
34 • "-A unit has: •
35
36 (1) . All powers granted. i..t. by statute; and
37 .
38 (2) All powers- necessary or desirable in the conduct
39 of its affairs, even though not granted by• statute."
40 .
41 Ind. Code 36-1-3-7 sets -forth the principal .statutory. proscrip-
42 tions and limitations which are placed upon a municipality.
43 Important in determining the extent of a municipality's power is
44 the provisions of Ind. Code 36-1-3-5 which states:
45 •
46 "A unit may exercise any power it has to the
47 extent that the power_:
48 "
49 (1) Is not expressly denied by the- Indiana .
50 • Constitution or by statute; and
51
52 .(2) Is not expressly granted to another entity."
53
54 Home Rule. provides, at Ind. Code' 36-1-3-9, that a municipality has
55 exclusive jurisdiction over bridges, streets, alleys, sidewalks,
56 water courses, sewers, drains, and public grounds inside its
57 corporate boundaries, unless-.a'statute provides otherwise. The
58 statute further declares that the area inside the corporate .
59. - boundaries of a municipality comprises its territorial,jurisdic-„
60• tion," excep.t to the- extent that a statute expressly. authorizes
61 the municipality to exercise a power in areas outside its cor-
62 . - porate boundaries: 'Furthermore, Ind. -Code 36-1-4=6 declares that
63 a .municipality may use, 'improve, develop, Insure, protect, main-
64 • tain, lease, and dispose. of its interests in property. Obviously,
65 the streets of the City of Richmond constitute proprietary interest
66 of the city. - .
�_ •
1
•
. _ • Common Council Minutes Cont'd. •
March 7, 1983
Page 3
1 ' , 'The specific stat,u;tory. provision ,which permits the city. to extend
2 its powers beyond the established corporate boundary lines, for
3 purposes .of' this: discussion;II/ is- found at -Indode 36-1-4-18.
4 • Such a ection provides, that a municipality may exercise the powers -
5 granted .by Ind., Code 36-1-4-6. in areas within four (4) miles '
6 • • outside its corporate- boundaries. Accordingly, the City- of
7 Richmond may use, improve,- develop, insure, protect, maintain, .
8 - .lease, and dispose .of its interests -in: property in areas within.
9• • ' four (4) miles outside the corporate boundaries. Because the
10 proposed "L" Street expansion .extends..beyond the established
11 • corporate boundaries of the City of-Richmond for a distance of not
12 ..more than two thousand (2,000) . feet at its furthest distance from
13 the corporate boundary lines, .the improvement, development and use
14 of such street falls' well within the four (4) mile permissible
15 . limit. Ind. Code 36-1-4-18 also• provides the City with power to •
16 acquire' and own interests in real property within four (4) miles
17 outside the -corporate boundary Moreover, the statute grants the
18 -... City the specific power to acquire such properties by eminent
19 • domain .or other means. See Ind. Code 36-1-4-5.
20 . .
21 In conclusion, there should be no:question that the-City of
22 Richmond has the statutory authority to improve, developuse,
23 ' insure, protect and maintain its interests in the South "L" Street
24 'expansion project.
25
. .26 Councilman' Williams' stated to.'sum :up the opinion, it is saying it .is.
27 appropriate to appropriate this .money. Remade a- promise. to support'.
28 the first 'part of- this project, but due:to what has happened ..and what
29 is going on: in'= the community, he will ha ve .to go back on his _word and
30 he will not support it at this time. I ' - '
• 32 ,Councilman _Welchrreminded_ Council_that this project has_ been under-dis-,
33 cussiori for_.quite some length of time. We have had more .than_one _publie •
34 hearing_ and e*planatory session„ We all agreed this project was .neces-
35 sary a long time ago and I think..we are trying 'to bring a lot of secondary
36 , reasons before us tonight to consider postponement.- Let's not procras-
37 tina.te about reasoris; -let's get on with it. - •
38 .
39 . Councilman,Elstro..noted. he has been against this. since the beginning.
40 We are going by two (2) schools, Hibberd and C. -R. Richardson with .a
41 four (4) lane highway and yet wlen: it gets out to 23rd it will be -two
42 (2) lanes. I, for one, am- going .to vote against it tonight. I think
43 right now it is a waste of money..
44 .
45 Councilman ;Car.ter stated there is an additional .$40,.000„ incorporated.
46 into this ordinance for the design of the last leg of the project. The
47 other thing I want to say 'is I want to challenge the.City Attorneys '
48 legal opinion in that under Item 2 on the second page in the third
• 49 paragraph it says that important in determining the extent of a muni- •
-
50 cipality'.s power is- the provisions of Indiana Code which states a unit
51 • may exercise any power it has to the extent that the .power is not ex-
.. 52 ' pressly denied by the Indiana Constitution or by statute; and is not -
53' expressly granted to another entity. We have Wayne County out there
54 and they-are another entity. They 'have charge 'of all the roads in the
. 55 . . county. They do now and I suppose they always will and we're not
56 granted thepower to go out into the county to build a city street and
57 that's what I want to' challenge and- I will be voting na• on this project.
58 • ' •
59 " .President Mills stated there will be no one answering questions as the
60 public hearing is over.
61 - -
62 Councilman Paust stated he would like to second Mr. '.Welch.'s observations.
63 This project goes back approximately seven. (7). years at which there have
64 been discussions, pros and cons, and a lot of discussions with people
65 living in the particular area that is definitely going to be affected.
312
Common Council Minutes Cont'd.
March 7, 1983
Page 4
•
•
•
1 There isn't any doubt in my mind over the years in working on this
2 project that the South "L"- Street extension is definitely needed.
3 I .certainly can appreciate the concern that Jack has with the two (2)
4 - schools -down there, but I certainly feel that the 'engineering firm .
5 which is doing the engineering in this .particular project area, is
6 going to take into consideration the two (2) schools, adequate space
7 • is going to.be the-rd to provide safety for those children. We have
8 other schools in the RCS school system on .streets that are probably
9 going to be as heavily 'traveled as this will- when the project is com-
10 pleted. . Yes, we are looking down the road into the future- of what
11 .may happen past -South' 23rd Street and maybe none of us will ever see
12 that expansion happen, but then .again maybe we will. Being prepared
13 and having the planning down now is very important. So many times •
14 cities wait. until the last minute to do the planning and then they
15 aren't ready for something, for example, right now you have a "Jobs
16 • Bill" that the federal government is-coming-out with. If our plans
17 - were done you never.know but we might--qualify for this and in the
18 . past this city has been fortunate in the fact it has had the foresight
19 to look-ahead-.and do the planning. and the .engineering necessary on
. - 20 projects. Now, they may-not have always had the money available to
21 carry those projects out but they had. all the planning, they had the
22 right-of-ways' and they had 'the land available. At the time the funding
23 was available, they could.proceed with a project like this. If we
24 - were to -stop and keep postponing this .project, we would be doing a
25 disservice .to the- community of Richmond, Indiana. We need to get on
26 :with this project - it has .been seven (7.). years now. We need to -get
27 ' the engineering done, completed and finalized. It may not go to -
Ill
28 construction but at least -the planning needs to be completely done
29 - .so every time we come ,in.here to appropriate additional funding we
30 , need not :go.-clear back to-the beginning -and' start talking and an
31 swering the same questioris'we had seven (7) years ago. We need to
32 move forward.. Mr. Mills is right, on third reading the only thing
33 we do -here is make final comments..
34 - •
-
35 Ordinance •No. -6-1983 was adopted by _the, following..vote:
36. .AYES: Henry, Hankinson, Welch, Parker, Paust, Mills (6) •
37 NOES: ' Elstro, Williams, Carter (3)
38
39 ADJOURNMENT -
40 -
41 There being no further business on motion duly made, seconded and-
42, passed the meeting was adjourned.
43
44 Kenneth Mills
45 - President
46
, 47 ATTEST: JoEllen Trimble . •
48 City Clerk .